Fred Phelps and his followers should be dragged out behind the barn, and put out of everyone's misery.
People claim that violence has never solved anything - but a good, solid dose lead in his ear would solve all of Phelp's problems.
And what good would that do? Isn't free speech protected in America? Or is it only agreed speech?
These morons have no followers other than their own "congregation" which are all related. Just how much more pathetic can they get?
They have no ability to spread their views, because they are so extreme, they even force people to question their own prejudices. In spite of themselves, they may actually do some good.
Raise a finger against them, and they have won. Kill them and they have won. Stop them, and you become them.
Laugh at them, and nothing they do can make any difference.
Put Lookalikes on a float in a gay pride march. Use them in advertising with a slogan to the effect of "Phelps picketed, so it must be good.." Make them into a tourist attraction, do like the comic convention people did and make them look even more bat shit crazy.
Make Phelps dildos. Do what ever daft and disrespectful thing you can think of to ridicule them. And hope they never stop, because they are what you become when you try to force your views on those who don't think like you do.
These people are a joke. Treat them as such. But remember, the best comedy has a social commentary undercurrent hidden in it.
The comic con people handled it perfectly. You on the other hand, allowed them to get under your skin. You lost.
Free speech is protected from government intrusion, specifically. Nothing says we the people can't get right in their faces and shut them up or shout them down.
Freedom of speech also means that you are to respect your fellow man's views, regardless of how unpopular they are, for it may be your views next that become sanctioned. Freedom of speech is far more than Government vs us. IT is a principal that every man's voice deserves a chance to be heard.
Freedom of speech also means that you are to respect your fellow man's views, regardless of how unpopular they are, for it may be your views next that become sanctioned
In fact it's exactly the opposite. Freedom of speech guarantees you the right to respect, disrespect, ignore, or anything else of someone elses views.
I think what you're getting at is that to maintain freedom of speech we must all believe in peoples rights to express their views. Respect is something else entirely.
I think you are both saying the same things and semantics are simply getting in the way. Respect can have a dual meaning in the context of the statements as in it can modify what is being said, as well as the right to say it. I believe you both were speaking to the right to say something, not about what was being said.
I used to play a game in school with a couple of classmates in which we purposely set out to obfuscate out points until the very end of the statements while leaning into a vulgar or disrespect
"Freedom of speech also means that you are to respect your fellow man's views"
NO IT FUCKING DOESN'T. Read the fucking constitution, from the goddamned Declaration of Independence all the way through the bill of rights. Freedom of speech is the GOVERNMENT being unable to silence our thoughts about the government or speaking our minds. Respect is earned, not inherently given.
And your views right now get absolutely NO respect from me with that sort of ignorance.
It's not the views you have to respect, it's his ability to have views that you need to respect. You can disagree with anything he says or believes in, you just can't stop him from believing or saying them if he isn't infringing on any of your rights when doing so.
Read the... constitution, from the... Declaration of Independence all the way through the bill of rights. Freedom of speech is the GOVERNMENT being unable to silence our thoughts about the government or speaking our minds.
Freedom of speech does means the ability to state your views (freely, without fear of punishment for holding or expressing those views).
Freedom of speech as it is implemented in the [USA's] constitution refers to the government's inability to restrict you from expressing you
Freedom of speech also means that you are to respect your fellow man's views, regardless of how unpopular they are, for it may be your views next that become sanctioned. Freedom of speech is far more than Government vs us. IT is a principal that every man's voice deserves a chance to be heard.
No. you are only supposed to unconditionally respect their right to express their views. You are free to view their views with utter contempt, and you are also free to say so. Freedom of speech works both ways.
Free speech is the core of Fred Phelps's Troll business. Governments aren't allowed to harass him, and he can sue them if they do. If individuals harass him to an extent that's illegal, he can sue them, or sue the governments that failed to protect him. If individuals harass him in ways that aren't quite enough for a lawsuit, that's still good for publicity as long as the press spells his name correctly or close enough. You can't shut them up, because what they believe in isn't a set of religious belief
Good post. But, we differ on "And what good would that do? Isn't free speech protected in America? Or is it only agreed speech?" If Phelps and company stayed in their little church house, preached sermons, put their trash on the web, and wrote submissions for the various newspapers, I wouldn't detest them as much as I do. And, I would argue to defend their freedom of speech, as much as I disagree with them.
IMHO, they go beyond freedom of speech when they picket funerals. I see trespass. They are trespa
Good post. But, we differ on "And what good would that do? Isn't free speech protected in America? Or is it only agreed speech?" If Phelps and company stayed in their little church house, preached sermons, put their trash on the web, and wrote submissions for the various newspapers, I wouldn't detest them as much as I do. And, I would argue to defend their freedom of speech, as much as I disagree with them.
There is a problem with that. The forms of communication that you listed are pretty much one way. Or can be made so. They can spout their hate and get no challenge. Create their own little echo chamber. And a certain weak minded minority will find themselves agreeing. This is dangerous. In public, they are not in control. They can't stop someone joining their picket with funny placards as the comic con people did, or they can't stop a whole drag troupe joining in and handing out slightly suggestive pastries
"And sadly trespass requires setting foot on private property.And sadly trespass requires setting foot on private property."
Main Entry: 1trespass Pronunciation: \tres-ps, -pas\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English trespas, from Anglo-French, passage, overstepping, misdeed, from trespasser Date: 13th century
1 a : a violation of moral or social ethics : transgression; especially : sin b : an unwarranted infringement 2 a : an unlawful act committed on the person, property, or rights of another; especially : a w
The best justice would be for the police to announce that they would not intervene, and if the public wanted to rip them limb from limb, that would be fine.
They deserve nothing but contempt, censure, restraining orders, bankruptcy by litigation, incarceration, and psychiatric supervision and chemical restraint.
If there was ever a candidate for a policeman in a totalitarian government, you are it.
I agree completely. Frankly I think these idiots have done a lot to help the gay community. I remember back when they were picketing the funerals of dead soldiers, ranting about how they went to hell since they defended an allegedly gay-loving country. The best part was seeing marines going up to them and just glaring at them with pure hatred, clearly on the verge of beating the shit out of them. I have a lot of respect for our soldiers (regardless of what our leaders are telling them to do) and that ju
Maybe it's just me, but "on the verge" sounds rather like "almost losing control". Believe me - a marine wouldn't lose control. He is a very controlled, very trained killing machine. He is only waiting for sufficient legal justification before actually going into action.;^)
Isn't free speech protected in America? Or is it only agreed speech?
Only agreed speech is safe. I thought pretty much everyone knew that.
Back in 2001 after the WTC was destroyed, an Australian boxer was denied entry to the US to compete in a match because he had been quoted as saying something along the lines of "Looks like US foreign policy came home to roost". Protecting things you want to hear is pointless - nobody is going to complain or stop you. The whole idea of "freedom of speech" is to protect peop
Veni, Vidi, VISA:
I came, I saw, I did a little shopping.
Worthless summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
This shouldn't even be a story. Not even on idle.
Fred Phelps and his followers should be dragged out behind the barn, and put out of everyone's misery.
People claim that violence has never solved anything - but a good, solid dose lead in his ear would solve all of Phelp's problems.
Re:Worthless summary (Score:5, Insightful)
This shouldn't even be a story. Not even on idle.
Fred Phelps and his followers should be dragged out behind the barn, and put out of everyone's misery.
People claim that violence has never solved anything - but a good, solid dose lead in his ear would solve all of Phelp's problems.
And what good would that do? Isn't free speech protected in America? Or is it only agreed speech?
These morons have no followers other than their own "congregation" which are all related. Just how much more pathetic can they get?
They have no ability to spread their views, because they are so extreme, they even force people to question their own prejudices.
In spite of themselves, they may actually do some good.
Raise a finger against them, and they have won. Kill them and they have won. Stop them, and you become them.
Laugh at them, and nothing they do can make any difference.
Put Lookalikes on a float in a gay pride march. Use them in advertising with a slogan to the effect of "Phelps picketed, so it must be good.." Make them into a tourist attraction, do like the comic convention people did and make them look even more bat shit crazy.
Make Phelps dildos. Do what ever daft and disrespectful thing you can think of to ridicule them. And hope they never stop, because they are what you become when you try to force your views on those who don't think like you do.
These people are a joke. Treat them as such. But remember, the best comedy has a social commentary undercurrent hidden in it.
The comic con people handled it perfectly. You on the other hand, allowed them to get under your skin. You lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech is protected from government intrusion, specifically. Nothing says we the people can't get right in their faces and shut them up or shout them down.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Worthless summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom of speech also means that you are to respect your fellow man's views, regardless of how unpopular they are, for it may be your views next that become sanctioned
In fact it's exactly the opposite. Freedom of speech guarantees you the right to respect, disrespect, ignore, or anything else of someone elses views.
I think what you're getting at is that to maintain freedom of speech we must all believe in peoples rights to express their views. Respect is something else entirely.
Re: (Score:1)
I think you are both saying the same things and semantics are simply getting in the way. Respect can have a dual meaning in the context of the statements as in it can modify what is being said, as well as the right to say it. I believe you both were speaking to the right to say something, not about what was being said.
I used to play a game in school with a couple of classmates in which we purposely set out to obfuscate out points until the very end of the statements while leaning into a vulgar or disrespect
Re:Worthless summary (Score:5, Insightful)
"Freedom of speech also means that you are to respect your fellow man's views"
NO IT FUCKING DOESN'T. Read the fucking constitution, from the goddamned Declaration of Independence all the way through the bill of rights. Freedom of speech is the GOVERNMENT being unable to silence our thoughts about the government or speaking our minds. Respect is earned, not inherently given.
And your views right now get absolutely NO respect from me with that sort of ignorance.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not the views you have to respect, it's his ability to have views that you need to respect. You can disagree with anything he says or believes in, you just can't stop him from believing or saying them if he isn't infringing on any of your rights when doing so.
It's not so simple (Score:2)
Yes... and no!
Freedom of speech does means the ability to state your views (freely, without fear of punishment for holding or expressing those views).
Freedom of speech as it is implemented in the [USA's] constitution refers to the government's inability to restrict you from expressing you
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech also means that you are to respect your fellow man's views, regardless of how unpopular they are, for it may be your views next that become sanctioned. Freedom of speech is far more than Government vs us. IT is a principal that every man's voice deserves a chance to be heard.
No. you are only supposed to unconditionally respect their right to express their views. You are free to view their views with utter contempt, and you are also free to say so. Freedom of speech works both ways.
Free Speech and the Professional Troll Business (Score:2)
Free speech is the core of Fred Phelps's Troll business. Governments aren't allowed to harass him, and he can sue them if they do. If individuals harass him to an extent that's illegal, he can sue them, or sue the governments that failed to protect him. If individuals harass him in ways that aren't quite enough for a lawsuit, that's still good for publicity as long as the press spells his name correctly or close enough. You can't shut them up, because what they believe in isn't a set of religious belief
Re: (Score:2)
Good post. But, we differ on "And what good would that do? Isn't free speech protected in America? Or is it only agreed speech?" If Phelps and company stayed in their little church house, preached sermons, put their trash on the web, and wrote submissions for the various newspapers, I wouldn't detest them as much as I do. And, I would argue to defend their freedom of speech, as much as I disagree with them.
IMHO, they go beyond freedom of speech when they picket funerals. I see trespass. They are trespa
Re: (Score:2)
Good post. But, we differ on "And what good would that do? Isn't free speech protected in America? Or is it only agreed speech?" If Phelps and company stayed in their little church house, preached sermons, put their trash on the web, and wrote submissions for the various newspapers, I wouldn't detest them as much as I do. And, I would argue to defend their freedom of speech, as much as I disagree with them.
There is a problem with that. The forms of communication that you listed are pretty much one way. Or can be made so. They can spout their hate and get no challenge. Create their own little echo chamber. And a certain weak minded minority will find themselves agreeing. This is dangerous. In public, they are not in control. They can't stop someone joining their picket with funny placards as the comic con people did, or they can't stop a whole drag troupe joining in and handing out slightly suggestive pastries
Re: (Score:2)
"And sadly trespass requires setting foot on private property.And sadly trespass requires setting foot on private property."
Main Entry: 1trespass
Pronunciation: \tres-ps, -pas\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English trespas, from Anglo-French, passage, overstepping, misdeed, from trespasser
Date: 13th century
1 a : a violation of moral or social ethics : transgression; especially : sin b : an unwarranted infringement
2 a : an unlawful act committed on the person, property, or rights of another; especially : a w
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on the specific wording of your local ordinances, you can charge the neighbor with trespass for playing his music loudly all night long.
You're thinking of nuisance [wikipedia.org]. The Wikipedia article on trespass [wikipedia.org] is pretty good.
Re: (Score:2)
The best justice would be for the police to announce that they would not intervene, and if the public wanted to rip them limb from limb, that would be fine.
They deserve nothing but contempt, censure, restraining orders, bankruptcy by litigation, incarceration, and psychiatric supervision and chemical restraint.
If there was ever a candidate for a policeman in a totalitarian government, you are it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's just me, but "on the verge" sounds rather like "almost losing control". Believe me - a marine wouldn't lose control. He is a very controlled, very trained killing machine. He is only waiting for sufficient legal justification before actually going into action. ;^)
Re: (Score:1)
Only agreed speech is safe. I thought pretty much everyone knew that.
Back in 2001 after the WTC was destroyed, an Australian boxer was denied entry to the US to compete in a match because he had been quoted as saying something along the lines of "Looks like US foreign policy came home to roost". Protecting things you want to hear is pointless - nobody is going to complain or stop you. The whole idea of "freedom of speech" is to protect peop